I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html

by mfukar • 16 years ago

144 133 16 years ago

jonafato2• 16 years ago

The thing that sets this post apart from others of the same category is the fact that the author was not given a choice in the search. This is exactly what a lot of discussion around here has been about (though admittedly the opposite of the expected outcome). The fact that it was a pat down, not a pat down or a scan is new. In most situations, the TSA could claim the the pat down is a choice, but here that is obviously not possible.

As for the assault claims, I am not surprised. I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Pat downs are invasive and uncomfortable, but unexpected invasion must be much worse.

siculars7• 16 years ago

>I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen.

Flight attendants are required by law to run through a pre flight safety instructional for every flight - even though we have all heard it many times. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights.

TSA agents should be very well versed in all options afforded passengers under the law and be very well capable of relaying that information to any passenger without being prompted.

If the flying public is expected to be treated like terrorists you better believe I expect TSA agents to know exactly what they are doing.

jonafato2• 16 years ago

I'm not saying they shouldn't be expected to follow SOP, I am saying that I'm not surprised that it doesn't always happen. By no means should this be excused. People make mistakes. It just happens to be the case that this mistake is worse than others and may result in sexual assault charges.

rms• 16 years ago

>Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights.

No, they aren't. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights in order for information from an interrogation to be admissible in court. But if they don't care about what you might say to them, there is no law that requires them to read you your rights. It isn't uncommon for rights not to be read in mass arrest situations, such as at protests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regar...

ajays• 16 years ago

According to the TSA, http://bit.ly/b133H4 , "there is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports. You have a professional workforce carrying out procedures they were trained to perform to keep aviation security safe."

Does this mean my government lying to me?? Well I'll be damned!

lukestevens• 16 years ago

For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle.

What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood?

I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted.

Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...

hyperbovine2• 16 years ago

I cannot recall a similar issue sparking as much across-the-board outrage since the "war on terrorism" began. However taboo it may be to discuss relaxing security requirements, that may turn out to be the lesser of two political evils.

ericd• 16 years ago

I agree. I think any politician could reasonably trot out a counter to the "he took out our line of defense" with a "I stopped your kids from being x-rayed or groped by getting rid of something that would have been ineffective in stopping this attack".

siculars7• 16 years ago

What is politically untenable are stories like these. This is an absolute nightmare.

loewenskind5• 16 years ago

It's too late to get rid of this ridiculous security theater but it's not too late to get rid of invasive and utterly ineffective procedures that are just getting started.

siculars7• 16 years ago

I've argued that the correct way to do airline safety is the way ElAl does it. The most salient argument against that is that the ElAl system will not scale. So let me get this straight, privacy stripping full body scanners and an army of ill-trained TSA agents is a more scalable solution?

The current situation is untenable. I am incredibly concerned by the latest round of rights and liberty infringing actions by the government in the name of "security". If it is not "security" it is "children". What remains to be seen is whether or not the current solution is scaleable in the face of tremendous public outcry.

defen• 16 years ago

The El Al system also makes heavy use of profiling, which is politically untenable in the U.S., and agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls on the ground. TSA contractors are currently paid so little that I doubt you're ever going to get much more than bottom of the barrel in terms of motivation, intelligence, and agreeableness.

siculars7• 16 years ago

Isn't this all profiling? The public is subject to taking off their shoes because the powers that be profiled a threat vector from the shoe bomber. Replace shoes with razor blades, liquids, underwear and now toner cartridges.

Since when did "profiling" become a dirty word? Perhaps when "racial" joined the party. I maintain that profiling is essential to ensuring our security when implemented sanely, rationally and with appropriate oversight.

How about UPS and FedEx not shipping from Yemen. The entire country! Isn't that collective punishment?

If we can not expect "agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls" to implement security to know the good guys from the bad guys then we are well and truly fucked.

ghshephard• 16 years ago

It should also be noted, that when ElAl does decide to do a pat down as part of their security policy, it is not gentle. I know a couple people (men) who've gone through it, and even though they knew it was a possibility, they still came out of it quite shaken - it is the equivalent of a full-on civilian police search, and bears only a passing resemblance to what the TSA is doing.

The difference is, of course, the TSA is subjecting everyone who opts out of the back scatter machine to their pat-down, whereas ElAl does so only to those they find suspicious.

siculars7• 16 years ago

Oh yes, oh yes indeed. My quarrel is not so much with invasive searching but rather with blanket invasive searching of all citizens. If according to specific rules and specific guidelines a trained agent and her superior were to determine there was due cause for further screening then so be it.

Abuse can be weeded out and consequent repercussions meted out by simple analytics on reports gathered on every 'enhanced' screening.

SkyMarshal• 16 years ago

I'm flying cross country in December and fully intend to opt out of the naked scanner, even if it means the 'enhanced patdown'.

I liken it to Ali choosing jail over Vietnam, and other instances when people protested government coercion by intentionally choosing the worse alternative to what the govt wanted them to do.

Hopefully the national outrage gets the policy changed before then, but I'm preparing to sack up and do it nonetheless.

notahacker4• 16 years ago

Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.

mfukar5• 16 years ago

Hysteria? I think it was shockingly calmly written, given the circumstance.

praptak• 16 years ago

Lack of consent - check (Nor even a warning, for that matter.) Touching of genitals by a stranger - check. What else needs to be there so that it constitutes real sexual assault?

notahacker4• 16 years ago

Gratification? A sexual motive?

Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?

hyperbovine2• 16 years ago

Could you please define "real" in this context.

Dylan16807• 16 years ago

Well, while the legal definition of assault is based on contact in general, I would guess that notahacker is talking about injurious violence, or at least a solid threat of it, as 'real assault'. And probably 'real' in terms of 'sexual' would mean something sexually motivated.

That's the problem with categories; a whole range of behaviors end up with the same name, and now we're wasting time with semantics instead of worrying about the rights violation.

yakisoft• 16 years ago

Every day America looks a less attractive place to visit or do business with.

heretoo• 16 years ago

Yes, America is off my list for the moment. I guess it's a luxury not everyone can enjoy. I'm starting to worry that my own country is moving in the same direction. It's not healthy that a government has so much control over it's people. They are there to serve the people, not the other way around.

siculars7• 16 years ago

I hate to agree with you but I do. If I were a foreigner arriving at JFK I would be inclined to turn around and not come back.

I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.

lastyear• 16 years ago

Where have you people been living? Not in my America where people are groped, fondled, struck, shackled, beaten, stripped, locked up, and worse every day. And these are innocent people guilty of no crime. This has been going every day of this woman's life. Are you living in a bubble? Is this really the first time this woman has been patted down?

AgentConundrum3• 16 years ago

Two stories:

1) Last week I got a wedding invitation from my cousin in Connecticut (well, a "Save The Date" technically. That seems to be a purely American invention, but seems roughly comparable to a wedding invitation in my Canadian eyes). This was on the same day I found out about these new "enhanced" patdowns.

2) My dad loves NASCAR, and his birthday is in February, right around the running of the Daytona 500. For years, I've wanted to take him there for his birthday. It's a whole week of different races, and I'm sure he'd love it. It appears I've waited too long / didn't get the money in time.

Two scenarios where I'd really like to visit the States, mostly for my dad. With these new "security" measures in place, however, there is no way I'm going to subject myself to such an ordeal just for a vacation. It might not necessarily be the sexual assault some people claim, but if my only option is to be either photographed nude or have some agent grabbing my junk, I'd rather just stay home.

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well:

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole.

I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1)

Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you."

One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one?

I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife.

You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb.

This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong.

(1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim".

(2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere.

(3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid.

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.

biot• 16 years ago

> there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities > which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example.

If you are required to get groped by the receptionist before you are allowed to see your doctor, you might have a point.

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

Yes. Thankyou. That's why I put in footnote 1. One of the biggest problems with this is we seem to have a spectrum of consent from the "I'll make them grope my sack before going like a sheep into the nudie-pic-machine" to the author of this article who had no foreknowledge or choice in the matter. The consent factor is very important here.

credo2• 16 years ago

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example.

This analogy makes very little sense.

The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can.

The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.

corin_2• 16 years ago

"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests"

I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere.

What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.

roel_v7• 16 years ago

Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure).

Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault?

I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).

Tamerlin4• 16 years ago

The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.

And that's the critical difference here.

What the doctor does is WITH your consent, and you have a choice in the matter -- plus it's actually truly for your own good.

What the TSA does is NOT with your consent, you don't have a choice in the matter (subject of the TSA's next porn video, or sexual molestation), and it's NOT for your own good, since there's no conceivable way that it will actually improve airline safety, given that it won't have any affect on any serious terrorist attacks anyway.

cookiecaper5• 16 years ago

I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point.

The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, especially if you're caught off guard. And of course such searches are extremely hard to justify and should never be codified into policy. Yes, it can be traumatic and violating, but this is nothing like a rape or "real" sexual assault.

A few months ago a jogger around here was hit with a cinder block, dragged off the trail, raped several times, beat with said block more, and left for dead in the woods. _That_ is real sexual assault. Such rapes are not really uncommon, though many less violent rapes also occur, and they are also highly traumatic and serious; much more serious than a TSA worker going about their mundane duties, which they are probably not very happy to be forced to perform either.

The activity described in the post is unpleasant touching, and I agree that we shouldn't allow it, but these events are not even in the same league as "real" sexual abuse or rape. I support your efforts to reclaim the term as a service to those many who've suffered serious abuses whole-heartedly.

chc• 16 years ago

I think that's attempted murder and torture. Using that as the bar for sexual assault downplays real victoms' experiences as well. (I don't mean this to disagree with your overall point. I just don't want to see the bar swing the other way where people feel like they're being told to shut up about sexual assault unless they were bludgeoned with a cinderblock.)

melvinram2• 16 years ago

According to the various definitions on http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+sexual+assault it seems to me that she was in fact sexually assaulted. Getting touched in private parts without consent is an assault of sexual nature.

There are other sexual assault cases that are much more severe but you can't discount stealing $1,000 just because there are cases of people stealing $1,000,000. Theft is still theft and sexual assault is still sexual assault regardless of severity.

grannyg00se• 16 years ago

How are you certain it was through-clothing? The first time I read the following I envisioned that it was under the clothes.

"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area."

"She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia."

If it's through clothing then it really sounds like nothing more than a thorough security search that I've experienced many times just to get into a night club. The person patting me down didn't tell me she was going to touch my testicles, but a portion of her hand did touch my testicles, through clothing mind you. Or to write in the above fashion:

"She wrapped her arms around my torso and felt up and down my back, then she bent at the knees so that her face was in very close proximity to my penis and put her hands on my buttocks, squeezing them and moving them up and down."

"She then moved her hands around to the front and inside of my thighs, touching each of my testicles."

The way it is written, and the fact that this woman feels so violated, I imagined this was all going on under the clothes. I don't see how a standard through clothing pat down could be traumatic, but I guess everybody has a different threshold for acceptable behaviour. I have to admit it is a bit jarring to have your sensitive bits jarred by a stranger, but this is not sexual assault given the context.

She was told she was going to be searched, and she was searched. There's no need to have disclosure about every specific part of your body that is going to be touched when you consent to a search. Yes, a hand my briefly come in contact with your labia through your clothing. That should be understood by most adults with common knowledge and experience.

If this woman truly feels violated in the same way that a sexual assult victim does, then I think her sensitivity threshold is abnormal. That's not her fault, nor is it anybody else's to be held accountable for.

c1sc0• 16 years ago

"I'd rather take my chances on the bomb." I wish more people, especially politicians, were mature enough to accept this. Not gonna happen in current western political systems though.

aneth4• 16 years ago

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy.

Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual intent.

The issues of notice and consent raised elsewhere are separate. If a doctor does not warn you that you will be touched, it is unprofessional, but not sexual assault. If you are committed to a prison and have no choice but to be put through a medical checkup involving touching private areas, it is non-consensual, but not sexual assault.

The hyperbole in the debate around this policy threatens any rational debate and conclusion.

stretchwithme4• 16 years ago

yeah, because it doesn't matter what the victim of an assault thinks, just whats going on in the mind of the assailant.

acabal• 16 years ago

At the risk of sounding cynical or aloof, I think the times when rational debate shaped the political climate and real-world policies of this country have long gone. It might be time for intelligent people to take a cue from Fox News and (dare I say?) start manipulating emotion to get what needs to be done, done.

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

>this is not sexual assault

And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".

Confusion3• 16 years ago

  We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It
  sounds too much like hyperbole.

I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually been sexually assaulted. That would probably knock some sense into them as to the difference between their experience and actual sexual assault. Being thoroughly frisked, in public, in broad light, where nothing bad could possibly happen, is being compared to being helpless and alone, with, usually, someone making violent threats that is doing far worse things than touching you? It's about as insensitive as you can get.

This bit is completely inexplicable:

  I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not
  follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new
  search.

  During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of
  the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually
  assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new
  search procedure and tell me when and where she was going
  to touch me

So let me get this straight: if the TSA agent had done the exact same thing, but would have commented on it a moment before doing it, it wouldn't have been sexual assault? Since when does sexual assault depend on the perpetrator announcing his actions?

mfukar5• 16 years ago

Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined.

Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates?

edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.

agentultra4• 16 years ago

This is a pretty sick response and all too common.

If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person.

She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must felt. However, I cannot deny that she was a victim!

I think it's disgusting that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" for reasons I cannot even begin to understand. Your logic is incredibly weak. There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal.

After reading about several of these cases, I know for a fact that I will not fly in the United States ever. Neither will my wife or anyone in my family. And if I can help it, neither will anyone I know. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." Let's call it what it is and demand that this be stopped before the idea catches on in other, still free, countries.

shareme• 16 years ago

Unfortunately you need to re-read.

They(TSA) did not follow SOP and warn her that such a search would entail what was described thus its sexual assault be legal definition..same rules as the pat-down when someone is arrested BTW..

loewenskind5• 16 years ago

This post should be more prominent in this thread. People are claiming hyperbole here but what happened was literally sexual assault. I think the case could also be made for young since they are not able to legally consent to the activity.

crocowhile• 16 years ago

The thing that annoys me the most about this new TSA rebellion is that Americans realized TSA policy is way over only now that people started touching (or even just scanning) their boops and junks.

nikster• 16 years ago

You raise some valid points - let's look at it from a completely different angle, namely what's our goals.

I'd like two things to happen: First for the lady blogger mom to get over it, and second for the TSA to be sharply pulled back from their ever more ridiculous policies which are both ineffective and intrusive. They're incompetent monkeys and we keep giving them more power. Which, unsurprisingly, only makes them more annoying, not more competent.

Firstly, if you consider yourself a "victim" of anything your best recourse is one of reflection, and ultimately one of forgiveness in the knowledge that the perpetrators are more insane than other people. You are not a victim. Something happened to you - it was bad - it can't be changed now - but is it going to ruin the rest of your life? That's for you to decide all alone.

I'll refer you to the Buddhist parable of Two Monks here [http://www.examiner.com/buddhism-in-national/buddhist-parabl...]

You don't forgive in order to make life somehow easier for whoever wronged you - you do it in order to make your own life better.

Second the TSA policies and procedures are a joke. The TSA must be stopped. If it takes people getting outraged or stopping air travel to do this - I am all for it. Publish this story as widely as possible, crack jokes on Leno, etc - I don't think it takes away from actual victims of actual sexual harassment (or worse). Victim-hood is overrated, and I firmly believe that the active approach is the only valid approach to solve trauma. Avoidance of the topic isn't going to solve anything (neither is confrontation BTW - insight is what is needed and what resolves seemingly impossible problems in an instant).

Sorry this is not more coherent. Argh.

credo2• 16 years ago

The TSA policy concerns me.

The only silver lining I see is that they may be responsive to the public outcry and figure out a better way to screen people. Perhaps, we should get the Israelis to train our TSA folks

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html offers one reason to be optimistic. A number of critical comments talk about "molesting", "groping", "assault" etc. and these comments haven't been censored. The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion may well mean that they'll take all the feedback into consideration.

siculars7• 16 years ago

> The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion

We may well be on a slippery slope but I don't recall the government issuing permits for open discussions - yet. Or even a group of people needing said permit to conduct said open discussion.

Although I agree with you about the Israel thing.

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with me, for I am not outraged as everyone else seems to be. So long as there's no groping etc going on, I'm inclined to just shrug and say to the agent, "well, you gotta do what you gotta do".

I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.

melvinram2• 16 years ago

"So long as there's no groping etc going on"

That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens.

I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts.

Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

wait, did you just say contact = groping?

loewenskind5• 16 years ago

>"well, you gotta do what you gotta do"

Except they don't. This procedure is not remotely effective, it serves no purpose except to shame people into using the naked scanner (and indeed, this appears to be the point, since the "pat down" takes place in plain view of everyone). This is why you should be outraged. This is pure thuggery.

stretchwithme4• 16 years ago

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.

The government has hijacked the relationship between you and the people you've hired to get you from point A to point B. Just because of previous lapses in their intelligence efforts enabled some people to do something terrible doesn't mean you lose your rights.

jsarch• 16 years ago

I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov:

"Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")

stretchwithme4• 16 years ago

and searches of you on the street can be avoided by electing not to leave your home.

gord• 16 years ago

In absence of a better term for this, 'Sexual Assault' does convey the emotional experience of being abused in this way.

Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld?

It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.

lil_cain• 16 years ago

I like the implication that it'd be ok if she wasn't an American citizen.

mayutana• 16 years ago

That's exactly the point that irked me. Would she find it ok, if it was done to her in say Europe.

guelo• 16 years ago

Well when you start pissing off the people that like to scream "I'm an American!" then there's a fighting chance that things can change.

sp3322• 16 years ago

American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.

X-Istence3• 16 years ago

Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.

martinkallstrom2• 16 years ago

I associate this with the previous discussion about response to bullying in school. The argument then was, should we teach our children to withstand physical abuse and report it to authorities after the fact? Or should we teach them to respond immediately as it happens and loudly, physically if need be, protest?

In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the breach to stick to her part of the protocol by keeping still and silently enduring the abuse.

However, it is clear that her lack of immediate response was not a concious decision. I'm very familiar with the paralysis of mind and body that occurred. As a martial arts instructor, I see this happen a lot especially in the beginner's classes. With an opponent just holding your arm or making any kind of physical contact in a fashion you're not accustomed to, your mind can very easily go blank and you fail to move at all. A lot of self defense training is directed to just overcoming the paralysis induced by fear and/or shock.

It is clear that the author post-poned all reactions until after the fact. Perhaps from a legal standpoint this was the best course of action. But from a human standpoint, it is my view that the trauma incurred would have been far less damaging if she had reacted immediately to what was happening.

To get to my point: for anyone that want to explore your own reactions to similar situations, it is both very affordable and illuminating to try out a few self defense or martial arts classes. Read up on what is available in your area and just try it out.

With just a few classes, you can learn to react to abusive physical contact with a sharp, verbal NO!! instead of freezing into silent paralysis during the abuse and bearing the resulting trauma. You even react to verbal abuse or just plain criticism from other people in a different way if you practice martial arts. It is beneficial to everyday situations a lot less dramatic than in the post above.

X-Istence3• 16 years ago

The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business she might have caused much more trouble.

martinkallstrom2• 16 years ago

That might be. And it might have been worth her while (IANAL)

dennisgorelik• 16 years ago

TSA is pushing forward sexual revolution -- there is no place for sexual shyness in the new world.

If you think about it: TSA pisses off both Liberals and Conservatives now. I wonder how long would it last.

nosse• 16 years ago

I think this matter has been conversated enough in HN.

I don't believe this subject is gratifying majority's intellectual curiosity.

It might be provoking lots of feelings, but this is not Feelings News nor Moral News but Hacker News.

I'm not saying anyone has been posting badly. I'm just saying that I've seen these "TSA sexual assault" twice now, and I don't think any new ideas will come along third time.

watchandwait• 16 years ago

America spends more than twice as much on the TSA's unconstitutional security theater than it spends on all FBI counter-terrorism activities.

jim_h• 16 years ago

Maybe it's be better if people stated it as they would like it to be 'stop treating us like terrorists'.

That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'.

Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?

protomyth• 16 years ago

A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-pat... http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333

Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.

AngeloAnolin• 16 years ago

Just a thought.

Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel.

I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.

wiredfool• 16 years ago

There's a Senate TSA Oversight Hearing on Wed, 11/17.

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C...

Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.

gnosis• 16 years ago

There are a lot of smart people here who are apparently outraged at this. But I wonder if any of them are going to do anything about it other than type in this thread.

basicxman• 16 years ago

I commented on the blog about how she was overreacting and told her to think about how the TSA agent must have felt (having to do that several times per day). My comment got deleted.

maxawaytoolong• 16 years ago

I hate to admit that I was expecting the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire theme song after her description of this event.

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

Related Stories